<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 29, 2015, at 9:00 AM, <a href="mailto:ii@msu.edu" class="">ii@msu.edu</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">29-Oct-2015<br class=""><br class="">Dear colleague,<br class=""><br class="">We now have one excellent reports on the paper you submitted to &nbsp;International Interactions some weeks ago, "Contracting with Whom? The Differential Effects of BITs on Mitigating Sources of Investment Risk" (GINI-2014-0678.R2). The reviewer is supportive, and I also believe that the manuscript is almost ripe for publication. &nbsp;but I would therefore like to conditionally accept your paper for publication. We would need the next version of the article as early as possible, but at the latest by 27-Jan-2016. Please tell me within the coming days when you would be able to send us a revised version.<br class=""><br class="">I attach a copy of the article with some corrections from my side. I propose that one of the editorial assistants, Maya Hadar, also takes a close look at the piece over the coming days. You can in the meantime prepare the replication files.<br class=""><br class="">Please send us the data that you used for the reported analysis plus the code and any log files as all authors are required to send us their replication material together with the final version of the article. This should be emailed to <a href="mailto:ii@msu.edu" class="">ii@msu.edu</a>, and the manuscript number and title noted. We will check these and the replication material will be made available electronically at the same time that the electronic version of the article is released.<br class=""><br class="">In order to formally accept your article, we will need to check that the replication materials reproduce the analyses you present, including the tables and figures, as well as numerical evidence cited in the text. Please submit your code and data, as well as information on any software and libraries/dependencies that will be necessary for us to do this. You should not use absolute links and file-paths when referencing code and data, but relative paths that will work across systems. In addition, clear directions in a simple text file is helpful alongside the code, as well as extensive comments within the code which identifies the place in the manuscript you present the specific result or figure that is being produced. Following these guidelines will not only help future potential replicators build on your work, but also ensure that we do not have to send the manuscript and materials back for further revisions and information, delaying publication.<br class=""><br class="">In revising your manuscript, please also follow the style guide for International Interactions, which is attached along with data policy.<br class=""><br class="">To revise your manuscript, log into <a href="https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gini" class="">https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gini</a> and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." &nbsp;Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." &nbsp;Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.<br class=""><br class="">You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. &nbsp;Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Center.<br class="">When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewers in the space provided. &nbsp;Please use this space to document any changes you make to the manuscript at this stage. &nbsp;In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewers. Even though the manuscript is conditionally accepted, we will still be reviewing it in house.<br class=""><br class="">In addition, this revision, since it has been conditionally accepted, does not have to be anonymous. Please feel free to check the box for anonymous submissions to move the process forward when prompted.<br class=""><br class="">If you have any questions about directions for revisions, please do not hesitate to contact me.<br class=""><br class="">IMPORTANT: &nbsp;Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. &nbsp;Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.<br class=""><br class="">I look forward to receiving your final manuscript. Thank you for your interest in International Interactions.<br class=""><br class="">Sincerely,<br class="">Professor Gerald Schneider<br class="">co-Editor of International Interactions<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:<br class="">Reviewer: 1<br class=""><br class="">Comments to the Author<br class="">I am pleased to recommend publication. The author has convincingly addressed the concerns and suggestions in my previous review.<br class=""><br class="">After reading the manuscript again, I just have a few minor comments that are more of an editorial nature and that can be easily implemented before publication:<br class="">- The sentence ending at the top of p.16 is incomplete. The author should think about adding one or two more sentences to connect this paragraph with the three hypotheses.<br class="">- On p. 25 the author discusses the findings of table 6. I believe the author actually means table 2?!<br class="">- On p. 25, there is a subsection on "Probing Mechanisms and Alternate Measures", which discusses the results for hypothesis 2. I would recommend merging this subsection with the main discussion of the results. To me it sounds like a robustness section and I was a bit confused why there was no discussion of hypothesis 2 in the main results section.<br class="">- In the results tables for the robustness checks in the appendix (tables 8 to 11), it would be nice for the reader to have some short text describing which sensitivity checks are presented in which model and table.<span id="cid:1A5D6995-876B-4D87-B1E2-DBA8244C3174@indiana.edu">&lt;Bauerle-Danzman-II.pdf&gt;</span><span id="cid:C578F180-EC7E-4A1C-BF8A-F0621E0877B3@indiana.edu">&lt;* II-StyleGuide-Aug2010.pdf&gt;</span><span id="cid:D067D22E-91EF-4B77-9A4D-C7BBC2EB53D7@indiana.edu">&lt;* International-Interactions-Data-Policy.pdf&gt;</span></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>